Is a Jacobite revolt at hand: Perhaps it's time for a

[Charles XII]

In response to Demetrias.

I agree with you as to the colonies.
However, I think you underestimate the persuasion power the monarchy has with influential individuals and the populace at large. The monarchy could sway the vote substantially, especially over singular issues.

Money is power.
Having no more power than big business is power enough.

All man is inherently corrupt. Each man byastly goes about his live in self seeking fear. It is everyones responsibility to counterbalance the byasts of others with their own and watch teir representitives with a keen eye.
This problem will not be solved till the end of our age.







I didn't say you souldn't have a supreme court, I said you should reform it.

I would not be so conceited towards the stability of America, they have all the components needed for the creation of a extremeist state. They have a strong and culturally edited press, they have a belief in their place as head of the "free world", they an immpending economic crises on the horizen, their economy depends on foreign trade and their security has been tarnished recently. there is also the treat of business elites using a "red scare" to prevent the formation of egalitarian parties.

And I'd like to remind you that the best and worst thing about a democracy is that it is terribly inefficient when it comes to adaptation, preventing anything less than a long term cultural change to disrupt the norm.

I'm from the Commonwealth, and we have a better health care system than Britain, ours is in decay to, but America never really had what I would call a health care program.
True the US hasn't had any coups, (which would be hard to have since there are so many small arms in circulation) but a general who holds presidential office for several termes through prestige is almost as bad.

 

[germanos]

I'll be the judge of my daftness, thank you.

Since you claim Britain is in fact a Republic (which I do not agree with), why your badmouthed reply?

Secondly, since you care to think the monarch has no power/influence, what is the point of keeping him/her? And again, why do you scoff at people who think Monarchies (in any form) are outdated and should go, when I have heard from you only excelent reasons to disband the Monarchy?

Thirdly, there is more choice between the English Monarchy and a Presidential Republic. Look at Gemany for instance. A republic, a president, but still the prime-minister calls the shots.

I am in great favor of a 'German Republic' (and if I understood Hitro well, I should call that a parliamentary republic) to replace the constitutional monarchy in the Netherlands. Not only for historic reasons (monarchy was established after the Napoleontic wars, whereas the birth of the Netherlands as an independent nation resulted in a republic (parliamentery)), but for the mere fact that the monarch HAS power, although (very) limited, and that recently, with the royal wedding and all, it was shown very clearly that in order to 'maintain' the democracy, the goverment had to take quite a few bends to let it go through. It was a rediculous performance, and a disgrace.
It is quite good to have a system where the prime-minister is the primary power, and to have a head of state to keep him/her in check (for as far parliament is not capable of doing that), I think it is rediculously outdated that this person must arrive at this position through heritary succession.

I think your poll shows just that.

 

[magic-monkey]

There are only two parties with any prospects for success.

and in the UK there are only two parties with realistic prospects as well, since the Liberal Democrats shouldn't really count.
I suppose there are the Welsh and Scots nats, but they're losing
ground since devolution.
It comes from utilising first past the post, i suppose.

 

[Charles XII]

In response to magic-monkey

I did not say the UK had a good democracy.
Their reason for only having two strong parties is because, like America they lak a percentage based government and instead rely on ridings.
It comes from utilising first past the post, i suppose
What does "It comes from utilising first past the post, i suppose" mean.

 

[Charles XII]

In response to germanos

I hope you don't take any offense from my posts, I mean none by them.

It seems you don't realize the hypocracies of modern monarchists.
I do not scoff at anyone. I'm sorry if it seemed as such.

The monarchy provides a passtime for many Brits, it raises moral in times of difficulty and serve as an excellent wing of the diplomatic corp.

The monarchy still has power, for example partly because of facists within the royal house Britain almost made peace with germany in June of '40.

Remember that though the Prime Pinister of Germany is a powerful figure Germany also has a Chancellor and a President,




According to the Oxford Dictionary a Republic is:A state in which the main power rests in the people or their elected representitives or officers, as opposed to one ruled by a king or similar ruler; a common wealth... or Any community of persons, animals etc., in which there is a certain equality among the members.

The Windsors were placed in power by popular consent and the vast majority of her subjects would not disband her.

I don't now about you, but I think this fits the UK.



There is no such thing as a Parlimentary Republic I merely used this arrangment of words to emphasize that Britain was a republic but different from America's. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.

I agree that Hereditary succsesion is a bad way to assign power.
I am in favor of a more or less Diocletian system in which the monarch oppoints their heir rather then automatic assencion of the eldest child.

However, I tend to be of a favorable oppinion towards the dutch monarch since every year my hometown is showered in Tulips bought at their expense.



I appologize for the poll Hanover was meant to be Stuart

 

[SKILORD]

Let 'em keep their royalty. They elect all the officials that matter.